Southland Paper Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 896 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In certain cases the Board has found that when employees covered by
a contract, purportedly in a meeting of the contracting union, vote to
disaffiliate from the union, that action in the context of an interuiiion
split of serious proportions creates a schism which causes confusion in
the bargaining relationship between the employer and the representa-
tive of his employees, so that the contract no longer serves to promote
industrial stability and thus should not bar an immediate election.2
The facts in this case do not warrant the application of the schism
doctrine. Apart from other considerations, the employees have not
voted at a meeting of the contracting union to disaffiliate froiii that
union. The meetings were held in the petitioning union's hall and
were presided over by representatives of that union. The Petitioner's
witness testified that the meetings were those of the petitioning union.
As the meetings at which the votes to disaffiliate were taken were
not meetings of the contracting union, it cannot be said that a schism
has occurred in the sense in which the Board has used that terln.3 In
this connection, we note that the contracting union is still ready,
willing, and able to continue representing these employees for purposes
of collective bargaining.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and of the entire record in this case,
we conclude that the current contract between the Intervenor and the
Employer bars a determination of representatives at this tiniQ. Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by United Gas, Coke and
Chemical Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59; Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Company, 86 NLRB 20.
2 Lewittes cG Sons, 96 NLRB 775 ; see also Telex, Inc., 90 NLRB 202.
SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC. and STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL 707,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 16-RG-$14. December 29, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles Y.
Latimer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
97 NLRB No. 119.
SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC. 897
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer at present has a contract with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 479, AFL, the Intervenor
herein, covering all employees in the power plant and electrical de-
partments at the Employer's Lufkin, Texas, paper mills plant. This
contract, dated July 14, 1950, effective from July 1, 1950, to June 30,
1951, with a 60-day automatic renewal clause , contains the following
union-security provision under which, at the time of the hearing, no
union-authorization election had been held pursuant to Section 9 (e)
of the Act.
All employees who, on July 1, 1950, are members of the Union
in good standing in accordance with its constitution and by-laws;
and all employees who become members after that date, shall,
as a condition of employment, maintain their membership in the
Union in good standing for the duration of the collective agree-
ment.
The Intervenor was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis
of this contract. It urges the contract as a bar to the petition herein
which was filed on July 20, 1951, for the power plant employees
presently included in the contract unit. The Petitioner, on the other
hand, contends that the contract is not a bar because of the presence
of the "unauthorized" union-security provision quoted above.
In view of the congressional policy expressed by the recent amend-
ment to the ActI deleting those portions of Section 9 (e) which
formerly required Board-conducted elections authorizing unions to
enter into union-security agreements with employers, the Petitioner's
contract bar contention has become without merit.z The contract
requires no employees to become members of the Intervenor after any
period of employment. For reasons set forth in the Charles A.
Krause case,' the fact that the contract contains no 30-day escape
clause for old employees who were members on the effective date of
the maintenance-of-membership clause is not material to the validity
of the contract as a bar. We find that the existing contract between
^ Public Law No . 189, 82d Congress , 1st Sess., Sec. (c ) ( Oct. 22, 1951).
3 Davis Motor Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 125.
Charles A . Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer and the Intervenor is a bar' to the petition herein.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Stationary Engineers,
Local 707, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
K-UNER EMPSON COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 30-RC-658. December 29,
1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer. -
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit of permanent and seasonal
employees of the Employer at its Brighton, Colorado, plant. The
Intervenor 1 asserts its contract, covering the period May 1, 1950, to
May 1, 1952, as a bar. The Petitioner contends, however, that the con-
tract contains an unlawful union-security clause and is therefore not
a bar .2
The contract provides as follows :
Subject to the exception hereinafter stated, all present and
future employees of the Company coming under the jurisdiction
of the Union as set forth in Article 1 shall be or become members
of the Union within thirty-one (31) days next after,signing of
Cannery Workers Local Union No. 23260 , A. F. of L.
The Intervenor was authorized to make a union-security agreement by virtue of an
election conducted pursuant to Section 9 (e) of the Act.
97 NLRB No. 135.